D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.3026/2014

(1)

In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

O R D E R

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.3026/2014

Ganga Devi Vs. State & anr.

Date of Order : 09.04.2014

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.K. Ranka

Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar, for petitioner.

Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for respondents.

BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Ranka, J.)

1.

Instant petition has been filed by the convict-petitioner

(Ganga Devi) through her son (Suresh Lal) seeking permanent

parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on

Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, “the Rules of 1958”).

2.

The convict-petitioner is presently confined in Central

Women Jail, Jaipur and serving sentence of life imprisonment

upon being convicted u/s 302/34, 201 IPC and sentenced to life

imprisonment by the court of Additional District Judge,

Nimbhaheda vide judgment and order dt. 16/05/2003 passed in

Sessions Case No.65/1999.

3.

Admittedly, the convict-petitioner is in judicial custody

since 06/09/1999 and has remained in judicial custody for more

than 14 ½ years of her sentence. The convict-petitioner is

presently aged about 79 years and is an old aged lady.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.3026/2014

(2)

4.

Counsel for the convict-petitioner submitted that the

convict petitioner has already served more than 14 ½ years of

imprisonment and being an old aged lady, deserves to be

granted indulgence of permanent parole. He contended that

under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, an accused can be granted

benefit of permanent parole on certain grounds/conditions and

the convict-petitioner, being a lady and particularly aged about

79 years, needs indulgence of this Court for granting her benefit

of permanent parole. Counsel contended that the convict-

petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of permanent parole

only on the ground that during the last more than 14 ½ years

she has not availed of any parole. Counsel further contended

that the conduct of the convict-petitioner in jail has been

satisfactory & good and there is no reason in not granting

permanent parole to the convict-petitioner. He contended that

the District Magistrate, Chhitorgarh has given adverse report by

simply observing that there is dispute between the parties

relating to the land matter and it may affect the peaceful

atmosphere. Counsel submitted that this cannot be a reason at

all for not granting benefit of permanent parole to the convict-

petitioner, more particularly, when the convict-petitioner now is

an infirm lady aged about 79 years and is not even in a position

to maintain herself properly. He further contended that the

Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh has also made the same

observations as have been made by the District Magistrate,

Chhitorgarh, however, the Social Welfare Department,

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.3026/2014

(3)

Chittorgarh in its report dt. 17/08/2013 (Anx. R/5) has

recommended for grant of permanent parole to the convict-

petitioner. Counsel further contended that in the light of the

above facts and circumstances, the convict petitioner deserves

benefit of permanent parole so that she may come in the main

stream and that she must be given indulgence of permanent

parole so that she can be taken care of by her family members

now at least for some time as she may not be in a position to

live long life because of her old age and being infirm.

5.

Counsel for the respondents objected to grant of

permanent parole and contended that from the reports of the

concerned District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, it is

seen that some dispute regarding land is going on between the

convict petitioner with her family members on account of which

it may aggravate and there is possibility of further quarrel

between the convict-petitioner and her family members and it

may